Talk:Trois nouvelles études

	Classical music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that are not covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Classical musicWikipedia:WikiProject Classical musicTemplate:WikiProject Classical musicClassical music articles
	This article is supported by Compositions task force.

Poland Low‑importance

	Poland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Poland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PolandWikipedia:WikiProject PolandTemplate:WikiProject PolandPoland articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Merger

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was merge Jubilee♫clipman 14:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that this article or section can be merged into 3 Études, No. 1 (Chopin), 3 Études, No. 2 (Chopin) and 3 Études, No. 3 (Chopin). It can be, I don't mind: these three in one, or this one into these three. OboeCrack (talk) 15:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, so someone do it already! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.246.195.95 (talk) 00:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree This was discussed previously (see here), but the matter was never resolved. These 3 works are not of the same order as the other 24, so there never could be a major article for each one individually. The three seperate articles should be brought over here are merged with this article. The articles for the opp 10 and 25 Etudes could easily be expanded over time, on the other hand, so they sould remain despite some only being a line long at present. Jubilee♫clipman 17:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have cleaned up the tag on this page so it doesn't need to redirect, and added tags to the other pages. Jubilee♫clipman 17:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One final thought: the text on this page and on the three individual pages is identical, as are the sound files, so all we need to do is delete the other pages. Agreed? Jubilee♫clipman 18:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also prefer one sole article rather than three separate ones. I think the others shouldn't be deleted, they all should redirect to this article. Kadellar (talk) 17:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, it makes sense to merge them --Sketchee (talk) 13:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Numbers

There seem to be differences in the numbering between publishers. The Scholtz/Peters score at IMSLP has them numbered as 1) F minor, 2) D-flat major, 3) A-flat major. All the others have them as 1) F minor, 2) A-flat major, 3) D-flat major. I suggest to stay away from the Scholtz/Peters score, listed as #112922. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]